coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Insar, Republic of Mordoviya.
5.  On 20 April 1999 the applicant was dismissed from his job as a security guard in a private company. He sued his former employer for reinstatement, payment of wage arrears and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
6.  On 19 November 1999 the Insarskiy District Court of the Republic of Mordoviya granted his claim in part and ordered his reinstatement in the job. This judgment was reversed on appeal by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordoviya, which remitted the case for fresh examination by the first-instance court.
7.  On 9 January 2001 the Insarskiy District Court of the Republic of Mordoviya found the applicant’s dismissal justified and rejected the claims in full.
8.  The applicant filed his statement of appeal on 18 January 2001. According to him, in the following months he regularly enquired with the court secretariat about the state of proceedings in his case but was informed each time that the date of the appeal hearing had not yet been fixed.
9.  According to the Government, on 1 February 2001 the applicant was notified about the pending appeal hearing in his case. The applicant contested that he had received any notification.
10.  In June 2001 the applicant went to the court in person and found out that the appeal hearing in his case had already taken place on 13 February 2001. He learned that his claim had been dismissed at the final instance.
11.  After that, on 14 June 2001 the applicant received the appeal decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordoviya, which, inter alia, read as follows: “At the [appeal] hearing Mr Fokin maintained his claims and asked the court to grant them”. The decision also indicated that the other party to the proceedings was present at the hearing and maintained its objections to the claim.
6.  The following is a brief summary of the relevant facts of the case[1].
7.  The applicants’ family owned real estate of approximately 1,500 hectares. It was confiscated by the State after the Second World War.
 8.  In 1991, the Land Ownership Act (Law no. 229/1991 Coll. ‑ “the Act”) was enacted, which provided for certain real property to be restored to its original owners or their legal successors. In situations similar to that of the applicants, the total acreage which could be returned was limited, under section 6 (3) of the Act, to 150 hectares for agricultural land and 250 hectares for other land.
9.  On 28 February 1992 an amendment to the Act (Law no. 93/1992 Coll.) repealed section 6 (3) of the Act as, according to its explanatory memorandum, “the acreage limit restricted human rights”.
10.  On 8 December 1992 Mrs M.R., the applicants’ relative, requested under the Act restitution of all her family’s real property to her.
11.  On 26 August 1993 a new amendment to the Act (Law no. 186/1993 Coll.) reintroduced section 6 (3) of the Act, setting a general limit of 250 hectares on the amount of land to be restored to one person. Pursuant to a new section 33 (2), pending claims for restitution of land over the said limit could be satisfied only up to that limit.
12.  On 15 February 1995 Mrs M.R. died. The applicants inherited her rights and continued her restitution claim as her heirs.
13.  On 22 February 1999 the Land Office found that the applicants met all the requirements for restitution of property under the Act and ordered the forestry enterprise which occupied it to restore the land to them up to the 250-hectare limit. The Regional Court in Žilina upheld this decision on 7 July 1999.
14.  On 20 September 1999 the Land Office formally ruled, at the applicants’ request, that they qualified for restitution of their property under the Act. However, in view of the decision of 22 February 1999 and the limit set by section 6 (3) of the Act, no further land could be restored to them.
15.  On 25 January 2000 the Prosecutor General challenged sections 6 (3) and 33 (2) of the Act, as amended in 1993, before the Constitutional Court. On 24 April 2001 the Constitutional Court, sitting in plenary, dismissed the Prosecutor General’s challenge.
16.  On 14 December 2001 the Regional Court upheld the Land Office’s decision of 20 September 1999 as lawful. It became final and binding on 25 March 2002.
17.  Subsequently the applicants unsuccessfully challenged the decision of 14 December 2001 and the proceedings leading up to it before the Constitutional Court by means of a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution.
4.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Van.
5.  On 29 August 2000 the applicant was admitted to the military service.
6.  On 7 September 2001 he went to see a doctor at the Sivas Military Hospital for an eye-sight problem. His medical report stated that he had ‑ 6, 25 of myopia (nearsightedness), +0,25 of hyperopia (farsightedness) and – 6,75 of anisometropia amblyopia (difference in refractive error between the two eyes leading to reduced vision in one eye) on his left eye. The report noted that the applicant had complained that he had had the problem on his left eye since childhood. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged from the military as he was no longer eligible for service.
7.  On 17 March 2003, the applicant applied to both, the Retired Civil Servant’s Fund for a pension and to the Compensation Commission at the Ministry of the Interior for compensation. Both requests were rejected.
8.  On 21 May 2003 the applicant obtained a certificate from the office of the headman (muhtarlık) attesting his indigence.
9.  On 5 June 2003, the applicant brought an action against the Ministry of the Interior before the Supreme Military Administrative Court requesting compensation of 30,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL)[1]. In his petition the applicant alleged, inter alia, that he had no such eye problems prior to his service in the army. He further referred to the doctrine of “social risk”, which did not require the establishment of any causal link between the harmful action and the loss. The applicant also requested legal aid to cover the payment of the court fees.
10.  On 24 July 2003 the Supreme Military Administrative Court, after examining the case file and hearing the observations of the rapporteur, dismissed the applicant’s request for legal aid on the ground that the case was not well‑founded.
11.  On 25 July 2003, the Supreme Military Administrative Court notified the applicant that he was required to pay a court fee which was TRL 476,970,000 (approximately 292 euros).
12.  In the meantime, on 19 August 2008, the applicant was examined by doctors at Van State Hospital. The latter confirmed that the applicant had strong myopic degeneration (-8 degrees) in his left eye amounting to 37 % of loss of sight.
13.  On 12 November 2003, the court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant failed to pay the necessary court fees.
14.  On 20 December 2003 the applicant was notified of this decision.
5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Istanbul.
6.  On 24 September 1998 the applicant, a student in the Faculty of Theology of İnönü University in Malatya, sought to enrol in the Faculty of Theology of Marmara University. For that purpose she provided, among other materials, an identity photograph which showed her wearing a headscarf.
7.  On 1 October 1998 the Faculty of Theology of Marmara University replied to the applicant, informing her that the identity photograph she had supplied did not comply with the regulations in force and that where this was the case, the person concerned could not be enrolled.
8.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an application for judicial review with the Istanbul Administrative Court. She requested, in particular, that the refusal of the administrative authorities be set aside as being in breach of her rights.
9.  In a judgment of 23 September 1999, the Administrative Court rejected the application, finding that the authorities’ refusal had been in accordance with the regulations in force. The court considered, in particular, that the applicant had submitted an identity photograph which did not conform to the regulations, which stipulated that “photographs must show the subject facing forward and be less than six months old, so that the person concerned is readily identifiable; the head and neck must also be uncovered” (Article 4 § 1 (f) of the Guide for University Applicants adopted by the Higher Education Board on 17 April 1998).
10.  Following an appeal by the applicant on points of law, the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 23 September 1999, finding it to have been in accordance with the law and the procedural rules. The relevant parts of the Supreme Administrative Court judgment read as follows:
“Summary of the request: ...
Opinion of Mrs Serpil K. Erdoğan, investigating judge of the Supreme Administrative Court: the judge is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed and the first-instance judgment upheld.
Opinion of Mr H. Hüseyin Tok, State Counsel (savcı) at the Supreme Administrative Court: the grounds of appeal set out in the statement of grounds do not correspond to those enumerated in Article 49 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. In view of the juridical and legal arguments on which the first-instance judgment was based, these grounds cannot be said to require the quashing of the impugned judgment ...”
6.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Haiger, Germany.
7.  On 12 November 1996 the applicant bought shares in a Romanian company, L. (“the company”). On 24 January 1997 and 21 September 1998 his shares, which at that date represented 87.5% of the total value of the company’s nominal capital, were recorded in the trade register (Registrul Comerţului).
8.  On 9 March 2000 the other shareholders decided to annul the applicant’s shares on the ground that the latter had not paid their value, despite repeated notifications to this end. On 24 March 2000 mention of this modification was made in the trade register.
9.  On 15 January 2001 the applicant lodged an action with the Bucharest County Court, seeking the annulment of the 9 March 2000 decision. The company argued, in defence, that, according to Law no. 31/1990 on companies (“Law no. 31”), the applicant lacked standing to bring the action, as he was no longer a shareholder.
10.  In an interlocutory judgment of 19 February 2001 the County Court dismissed the company’s objection of lack of standing. The action was allowed on the merits on 22 October 2001.
The County Court considered that the evidence brought by the applicant supported his claims of having locus standi. On the merits of the case, the court found that the 9 March 2000 decision had not observed the requirements of Law no. 31. It therefore cancelled it.
11.  This decision was upheld in a final decision of 12 March 2002 of the Bucharest Court of Appeal, upon an appeal lodged by the company.
12.  On 4 March 2002 the applicant lodged a new action with the Bucharest County Court, asking for the 24 March 2000 entry to be removed from the trade register. Based on the final decision of 12 March 2002, the County Court allowed the action in a judgment of 20 May 2002, which became final on 20 November 2002.
13.  On an unspecified date, the Procurator General lodged an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice, with a view to having the final decision of 12 March 2002 quashed (recurs în anulare), on the ground that the applicant lacked standing to bring his initial action.
14.  The Supreme Court considered that the applicant had lost his status as a shareholder when his shares had been annulled by the company, a situation confirmed by the entry of 24 March 2000 in the trade register. Therefore, in a final decision of 25 March 2003, it allowed the extraordinary appeal and, on the merits of the case, rejected as inadmissible the applicant’s initial action.
5.  The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Orhei.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  The applicant was a victim of deportation by the Soviet authorities in the 1940s. In 1941 his family’s house was confiscated by the State. In 1992 the Moldovan Parliament enacted Law No. 1225-XII which allowed the victims of Soviet repression to claim back their confiscated property.
8.  In 1998 the applicant brought an action against the local council, claiming the return of his family’s house. On 27 November 1998 the Orhei District Court found for the applicant. It confirmed his property right over the house and ordered the local council to evict the current tenants and provide them with alternative accommodation. The judgment became final. One of the two families concerned by the eviction included a person with a first-degree disability.
9.  The applicant obtained an enforcement warrant which the bailiff failed to enforce. On 14 March 2002, the applicant wrote a letter to the bailiff of the Orhei District Court asking him to enforce the decision of 27 November 1998. The bailiff replied by a letter dated 3 April 2002, stating that the local council did not have the means to execute the judgment.
10.  In view of the long period during which the judgment had not been enforced, the applicant on 10 January 2003 proposed to the council that it pay him the monetary value of the house, which he estimated at 80,000 Moldovan lei (MDL), (approximately 5,465 euros (EUR)) at the relevant time. By a letter of 28 January 2003 the council rejected his offer on the ground that the house was worth MDL 15,514 according to the real estate register.
11.  On 20 February 2004 the local council informed the applicant that it had modified its budget for 2004 and had provided for MDL 80,000 to be paid to him in lieu of the house. No offer of compensation for pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage was made. The applicant rejected the offer. Subsequently the Republican Institute for Judiciary and Criminal Expertise (“the RIJCE”) determined the market value of the house at MDL 81,570 (EUR 5,400). The applicant again rejected the offer.
12.  At the Government’s request, a second valuation of the applicant’s house was carried out by experts from the National Centre for Expert Analysis (“the NCEA”, attached to the Ministry of Justice) on 16 July 2007. The experts concluded that the market value of the house was MDL 162,000 (EUR 9,674).
13.  According to the applicant, an expert hired by him did not have access to the house or the documents relating to it. He could not, accordingly, determine its market value. At the applicant’s request, an estate agency certified on 16 January 2008 that houses in the centre of Orhei were worth between EUR 25,000 and EUR 150,000, while apartments cost EUR 450-500 per square metre. The cost of renting a house varied between EUR 50 and EUR 100 a month.
14.  The judgment of 27 November 1998 has not been enforced to date.
6.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Haiger, Germany.
7.  On 12 November 1996, the applicant bought 7,000 shares having the value of 3,500,000,000 Old Romanian Lei (ROL), in a Romanian company, L. (“the company”). On 24 January 1997 and 21 September 1998 these shares, representing 87.5% of the total value of the company’s nominal capital, were recorded in the trade register (Registrul Comerţului).
8.  On 26 September 1999 the other shareholders decided, in the applicant’s absence, to increase the company’s capital by assets contributed by one of the shareholders, thus devaluating the applicant’s share in the company from 87.5 % to 10.29% of its capital. On 4 October 1999 mention of this modification was made in the trade register.
9.  On 4 November 1999 the applicant lodged an action with the Bucharest County Court, seeking the annulment of the 26 September 1999 decision.
10.  The action was allowed on 22 October 2001. The County Court considered that the decision under review had not observed the requirements of Law no. 31/1990 on companies (“Law no. 31”). It therefore cancelled it.
The solution was upheld by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 25 February 2000 and also by the Supreme Court of Justice, in a final decision of 27 June 2001, upon appeals by the company.
11.  On 6 November 2000 the applicant lodged a request with the Trade Register Office for the 4 October 1999 entry to be removed from the trade register. On 18 January 2001 the request was allowed, on the ground that the shareholders’ decision of 26 September 1999 had been annulled by the courts. Upon an appeal by the company, that solution was upheld by the Bucharest County Court in a final decision of 8 March 2001.
On an unspecified date, the Procurator General lodged an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court of Justice, with a view to having the final decision of 27 June 2001 quashed (recurs în anulare), on the grounds that the ordinary courts had been wrong in considering that the shareholders’ decision had not complied with the legal requirements and that, in any case, the applicant had lacked standing to bring his initial action.
12.  The Supreme Court considered that the evidence in the case confirmed that the 26 September 1999 decision had observed Law no. 31. Therefore, in a final decision of 9 June 2003, it allowed the extraordinary appeal and, on the merits of the case, rejected the applicant’s initial action.
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Tarnów. He is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in Tarnów Prison.
Criminal proceedings against the applicant and his detention on remand
6.  On 30 July 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder.
7.  On 31 July 2002 the Bytom District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody. It justified the applicant’s pre‑trial detention by the gravity of the offence, the existence of strong evidence against him, the likelihood that a heavy penalty would be imposed and by the need to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings.
8.  The applicant’s appeal against the decision to remand him in custody was unsuccessful. On 4 September 2002 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy), relying on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a serious offence, upheld the Bytom District Court’s decision.
9.  The applicant’s pre‑trial detention was subsequently extended by decisions of the Katowice Regional Court of, inter alia, 21 October 2002, 2 December 2002, 31 March 2003 (upheld by the Katowice Court of Appeal on 7 May 2003), 29 July 2003 and 16 June 2004.
10.  Once the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory two‑year maximum laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the first‑instance court was no longer competent to extend it. Consequently, it was the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) which issued further extensions on, inter alia, 14 July 2004, 8 December 2004, 6 April 2005 and 28 December 2005.
11.  The courts repeatedly justified the applicant’s pre‑trial detention in the initial phase by the existence of strong evidence against him, the likelihood that a heavy penalty would be imposed and the reasonable risk that the applicant would attempt either to induce witnesses to give false testimony or to obstruct the proper course of proceedings by other unlawful means. They further stressed that it would be necessary to hear evidence from a large number of witnesses and to obtain expert reports.
12.  In the latter stages of the applicant’s detention, the courts additionally referred to the complexity of the case and the fact that there was strong evidence against him and other defendants.
13.  In the meantime, on 16 April 2003 the applicant was indicted on a charge of murder allegedly committed with two accomplices, who were also on trial.
14.  On 4 July 2005 the Katowice Regional Court convicted the applicant and his co‑defendants as charged. The applicant was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment.
15.  The prosecutor and the lawyers of all three defendants lodged appeals.
16.  On 25 January 2006 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld the substance of the first‑instance judgment concerning the characterisation of the charges and the sentence.
17.  On 8 November 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant.
4.  On 5 May 1999 the applicants were laid off by the Diyarbakır Sur municipality, with which they had been employed.
5.  Each of the applicants brought an action in the Diyarbakır Labour Court, claiming outstanding salaries, dismissal indemnities, severance pay and other pecuniary rights.
6.  On 11 November 1999 the court ruled in their favour and ordered the municipality to pay the applicants certain amounts in Turkish liras (TRL), including costs, together with interest running from 15 June 1999.
7.  In the absence of an appeal the judgments became final on 22 November 1999.
8.  In the following months, as they did not receive any payment, the applicants requested the Diyarbakır Governorship to intervene in order to facilitate the enforcement of the court’s judgments. The Governor’s Office informed the applicants that it had requested the municipality to redress their grievances. However, due to lack of funds, the municipality did not make any payment.
9.  At the date of introduction of the present application, the relevant judgment debts were still outstanding. Therefore, friendly settlement agreements were reached between the following applicants and the municipality on the dates indicated:
- Müzeyyen Kalkan on 15 March 2005;
- Şükrü Güntoğar on 23 January 2006, and
- Bayram Akbulut on 11 December 2007.
10.  No settlement was reached in respect of the other applicants. However, the municipality deposited a partial amount in the relevant account at the local enforcement office, which was made available to the remaining applicants. On 21 February 2005 Salih Demircan was paid 822 New Turkish liras (TRY).
5.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Town of Gayvoron. She worked as a judge at the Gayvoron Town Court and retired in February 2007.
6.  On 20 August 2002 the Pecherskyy District Court of Kyiv ordered the State Treasury to pay the applicant UAH 4,766[1] in compensation for her uniform.
7.  On 30 October 2002 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.
8.  On 3 December 2002 the Bailiffs instituted the enforcement proceedings.
9.  On 22 December 2003 the enforcement proceedings were discontinued for the lack of budgetary funds.
10.  On 3 October 2005 the judgment in the applicant’s favour was enforced in full.